create_project

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds useful constraints such as description max length, kind semantics, and optional extra_vars, but it does not mention permissions, duplicate-title behavior, or side effects beyond creating a project or area.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The one-line purpose is front-loaded and the Args block is compact and scannable. Every line adds information about a parameter or constraint; there is no filler or repeated schema boilerplate.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

All six parameters are documented with enough semantics to invoke the tool correctly, and optionality is clearly marked for description and extra_vars. Return-value details are presumably covered by the output schema, so their absence is acceptable; the remaining gaps are behavioral depth and explicit sibling-routing guidance.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the Args section compensates fully: every parameter is named with a purpose, and context, status, kind, and extra_vars receive concrete examples or default semantics. This goes well beyond the raw property type information in the input schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Create a new project or area,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling creation tools like create_task, create_zettel, and create_meeting. The Args section reinforces the exact resource kind, so an agent can tell it apart without opening sibling definitions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains the project/area distinction in the kind parameter but never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over create_task, create_zettel, or create_meeting. It implies its use context from the first line and parameter semantics, but leaves the when-to-use guidance to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.